Observable Evidence: Evolution vs. Creationism

a reply to: cooperton

Has there ever been an account of an observed instance of a change of kind?

You will find a great many of them, both living and extinct, in this thread.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton


(a) What level of education do you have in the sciences?
(b) Why are you citing old “experiments” which have been discredited as “proof” of something?
(c) Why are you citing the bible, which is not peer reviewed as a source of scientific fact?

Of all the hate that has been posted against my intelligence, I'll just pick this one to respond too.

a) neuroscience degree.
b) although this experiment has not been undoubtedly confirmed this century, that does not mean the experiments were not valid. Bathing the equipment in mercury and baking the equipment at charring temperatures, while exposing the post-sanitized set-up to an atmosphere of mercury, seems like proper aseptic technique to me.
c) I never quoted the bible. You may be referring to my usage of the word "kind", but I'm just trying to simplify taxonomical terms. Rather, I'm referring to the process of abiogenesis, in which life comes from non-biological means. Abiogenesis can also fit into the theory of evolution, because, there must be an explanation of how the first cell spawned (life from non-life). The sort of abiogenesis I am trying to demonstrate is one in which complex life forms (Crosse - bugs, Reich - protozoans, Littlefield - microscopic fish forms) are spawned from non-biological means, i.e. without biological eggs (or binary fission for bacteria).

Many of you have bashed the validity of the Crosse experiment, yet I think the person who replicated the experiment had proper aseptic technique. But hey, let's throw that experiment out the window because it seems to make a lot of you furious because it has not been replicated this century (barring those ambiguous oriental artists/scientists???).

I want to put the focus on one of these experiments that was replicated recently: Wilhelm Reich's bion experiment. He generated living forms from inorganic matter. As I said, this could be a testament to evolution, because this would explain the step from non-living to living matter. But, It could also imply that all life as we know it arose from a force that we do not nearly understand; as demonstrated by the immediate unbelief that strikes any scientifically dogmatic person who hears about Crosse's experiment. Anyway, here is Reich's experiment replicated:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: cooperton

Many of you have bashed the validity of the Crosse experiment, yet I think the person who replicated the experiment had proper aseptic technique. But hey, let's throw that experiment out the window because it seems to make a lot of you furious because it has not been replicated this century (barring those ambiguous oriental artists/scientists???).

science is not a matter of convenience. it is not a matter of "one and done". it is a process that follows specific steps according to specific circumstances for reasons reviewed and approved by highly respected students of scientific study over the course of a few hundred years or so. integrity, honesty, and diligence are all critical elements in the process. and simply accepting the crosse experiment at face value upholds none of these elements. so yes, we are going to criticize. we are going to cross examine. we are going to try to sink the boat because thats the fastest way to make sure the boat is seaworthy. if you are afraid to put the crosse experiment to trial by fire, that tells us everything we need to know about the experiment. and if you are truly indignant about our rejection of the experiment, the solution is relatively simple: recreate the experiment yourself according to the standards and protocols of modern scientific investigation. that should give us a reason to take the experiment seriously, provided the experiment is successful.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

... the solution is relatively simple: recreate the experiment yourself according to the standards and protocols of modern scientific investigation. that should give us a reason to take the experiment seriously, provided the experiment is successful.

I agree. Consider the experiment pending.

a reply to: cooperton

Many of you have bashed the validity of the Crosse experiment, yet I think the person who replicated the experiment had proper aseptic technique. But hey, let's throw that experiment out the window because it seems to make a lot of you furious because it has not been replicated this century (barring those ambiguous oriental artists/scientists???).

Really?? And how do you know that? They were ELECTRICIANS - they knew nothing of sterile technique. And even if they were doctors, no one used good sterile technique in those days. He used tap water and glass - two of the most notorious items in a lab which can be contaminated.

You want to believe something with zero evidence - that's your choice. But the evidence stands or falls on the methods. No one has repeated that experiment since the 1800's.

The setup is pretty easy. Why don't you try it in your kitchen? Let us know how it works out.

And no one has used any "hate" language as far as I can see. You're seeing what you want to see. Everyone has simply pointed to the fact that the experiment was never repeated.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

... the solution is relatively simple: recreate the experiment yourself according to the standards and protocols of modern scientific investigation. that should give us a reason to take the experiment seriously, provided the experiment is successful.

I agree. Consider the experiment pending.

you should absolutely post the results here when it has been peer reviewed by a certified board and approved/rejected.

a reply to: cooperton

You may be referring to my usage of the word "kind", but I'm just trying to simplify taxonomical terms.

If you want to simplify things, try defining (in a clear and objective way) what you mean by "kind". No offense, but defining it by example -- "a bird is a kind, an insect is a kind" -- is only useful if you want to move the goalposts later on.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton





"Many of you have bashed the validity of the Crosse experiment, yet I think the person who replicated the experiment had proper aseptic technique."


Really?? And how do you know that?

I read their procedure.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: cooperton

You may be referring to my usage of the word "kind", but I'm just trying to simplify taxonomical terms.

If you want to simplify things, try defining (in a clear and objective way) what you mean by "kind". No offense, but defining it by example -- "a bird is a kind, an insect is a kind" -- is only useful if you want to move the goalposts later on.

I guess the best way to describe it would be "nature, or essence". A change of the animal's essence. The amount of speciation required to observe a change of kind, i.e. fish to amphibian, has never been observed under a laboratory setting. Rather, this is presumed to be the amalgamation of subtle mutations over time. It seems logically possible, but it has not yet been demonstrated in a lab setting; to translate to scientific terms, it has never been observed that a population of organisms 'evolved' into a different taxonomical family.

a reply to: cooperton

Each time you use the word "kind", you use it to mean a different classification. Try using real scientific terminology if you wish to discuss science. Please pick a classification instead of using one that can mean any of them. You claim to have a neuroscience degree, wouldn't it annoy you if folks kept attacking neuroscience, calling it faith based and using blatantly wrong terminology to describe it?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Each time you use the word "kind", you use it to mean a different classification. Try using real scientific terminology if you wish to discuss science. Please pick a classification instead of using one that can mean any of them. You claim to have a neuroscience degree, wouldn't it annoy you if folks kept attacking neuroscience, calling it faith based and using blatantly wrong terminology to describe it?

like calling every variation of interaction within the human brain a "spark"...because electrical signals and stuff. even though its not nearly as simple as that.

"show me a spark becoming a new spark!" a very simplistic variation on the question "how does an experience become a memory and how do neurons interact to perform that function"

the latter is far more helpful than the former.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Each time you use the word "kind", you use it to mean a different classification. Try using real scientific terminology if you wish to discuss science. Please pick a classification instead of using one that can mean any of them. You claim to have a neuroscience degree, wouldn't it annoy you if folks kept attacking neuroscience, calling it faith based and using blatantly wrong terminology to describe it?

"to translate to scientific terms, it has never been observed that a population of organisms 'evolved' into a different taxonomical family. " Family is the scientific term that fits closest in my opinion

a reply to: cooperton

Now you are misusing the term "observe". In science it doesn't just mean to watch something in real time. Observations can be made with experiments, by studying fossils, and by utilizing radiometric dating methods. By observing the fossils of intermediary species, we can see the common traits and observe the change in the family classification. I gave an example of the whale on the previous page which is based on scientific observations and still holds true. So that should settle this thread then, since we provided exactly what you asked for. We have given you an example of creature changing its family backed by scientific observation. I'm not sure what else you want here.

Spam removed by admin.

a reply to: cooperton

You stll don't understand "common ancestor". I posted the taxonomy charts - why don't you read them - of course not because you're afraid you'll learn something that isn't within your world view.
[knock head against wall]

By the way, you have never answered the question about biology textbooks - give us a link to a biology textbook that says dogs turned into cats and monkeys turned into man. Waiting patiently......

a reply to: cooperton

You may not have quoted the Bible but you referenced it and your terminology came from it. You're looking for ways to prove it. I'm not going to fault anyone for lacking knowledge about something and seeking answers. But whether by intent or not, you're making no effort to understand. Instead you're just saying "oh well it hasn't been observed in a lab so it's all based on assumptions". Hey, I'm no scientist myself. But I know that credible scientists don't make assumptions. There are facts and no doubt, educated assessments (as opposed to uneducated assumptions).

Why don't you address what Barcs and I have pointed out about Whale evolution? Why don't you address the transitional fossil record? You know in my first link they briefly cover fish to amphibian evolution?

Why don't you address half the other posts?

Observations don't have to be made in a lab, in real time, to be observation. Studying fossil records, genetics etc. are just as valid forms of observation. These observations are repeatable. They are testable. Evolution can make predictions that are accurate.

The only thing I've seen you really tackle in this thread is Crosse and similar experiments. You could have done that in your other thread about that topic specifically. Instead your focusing on it here to dance around the evolution subject.

a reply to: cooperton

I think the person who replicated the experiment had proper aseptic technique. But hey, let's throw that experiment out the window because it seems to make a lot of you furious because it has not been replicated this century.

Seriously?

No, I mean, let's get serious here.

Are you seriously putting forward a claim that a Victorian scientist caused, or at least midwifed, an instance of spontaneous generation in his lab?

Do you genuinely believe this happened?

Yes or no?

There seems to be a pattern here:

originally posted by: Ghost147
I'll repeat myself... again: We know that organisms reproduce with variation. We know that genetic drift leads to speciation (and have observed this). We have biological historical records from species to species where we can trace a direct lineage (which also happen to be dated in the exact way we would expect these organisms to have been alive). We have biological traits which are dormant in living specimens that coincide with this lineage to a common ancestor.

We have mounds and mounds of evidence that all points to one single conclusion. We have 0 evidence that suggests it doesn't do what this conclusion describes. So what exactly is the purpose of having to "be there to see it first hand" that is so important and further conclusive?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Can you please show me any biology textbook that says that monkeys turned into turtles, an ape turned into a man, a dog turned into a cat? Creationists use those examples over and over again and never acknowledge that evolution is about common ancestry - I think I said that before in this thread - but as usual, it gets ignored. So please provide a list of biology books that specifically say that one phyla turned into another. While you're at it, look up "common ancestry" and see if you can figure out what evolution really says.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Hey OP, I've already posted this for you many times before in another thread and each time you just go "but... but..." and start repeating yourself without ever addressing any of my points. Well, here they are again. Fancy taking a crack?

1) It's not a peer-reviewed paper. It's basically a "letters to the editor".
2) It's in the proceedings for a conference that has NOTHING to do with biology.
3) The author even stated he didn't think it was spontaneous creation but contaminated samples.
4) This incredibly simple experiment was described nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO in some obscure electrical conference proceedings. It's never been followed up since. Funny, that.
5) Clinging to this laughably flimsy "evidence" whilst ignoring the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution means (IMO) you are self-deluded to the point of living in your own la-la reality bubble.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's pretty much a given that anybody who uses the term "kinds" knows nothing about evolution or biology. The OP used the word to mean completely different things when he said plants will be plants and frogs will be frogs. In the first he referred to kingdom, in the second he referred to genus or family. It's pretty LOLworthy at this point, and it's blatantly obvious he got his arguments straight from Kent Hovind.

originally posted by: Barcs
Now you are misusing the term "observe". In science it doesn't just mean to watch something in real time. Observations can be made with experiments, by studying fossils, and by utilizing radiometric dating methods. By observing the fossils of intermediary species, we can see the common traits and observe the change in the family classification. I gave an example of the whale on the previous page which is based on scientific observations and still holds true. So that should settle this thread then, since we provided exactly what you asked for.
We have given you an example of creature changing its family backed by scientific observation. I'm not sure what else you want here.

cooperton, All you seem to be doing is focusing on your experiment in your first post, and not addressing ANYTHING else. We have given you response after response about how you're concept of how Evolution functions is incorrect. We have responded and responded to how science does not need personal observation to be capable of defining something. We have showed you speciation and how genetic drift leads to further branching of species until families are born.

These aren't complicated subjects. Why are you just ignoring them?

a reply to: Ghost147

These aren't complicated subjects. Why are you just ignoring them?

That's SOP (standard operating procedure) for Creationists. They tend to disappear into the aether very fast when they're confronted with the facts.

No response is simply an admission of ignorance. So says the court of common sense.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Ghost147

These aren't complicated subjects. Why are you just ignoring them?

That's SOP (standard operating procedure) for Creationists. They tend to disappear into the aether very fast when they're confronted with the facts.

No response is simply an admission of ignorance. So says the court of common sense.

Yes, I am aware. It was more of a rhetoric than anything else. I'm just hoping one day some creationist will answer that question.

I can only dream.